Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Victoria Manor

Goodpublished 7 February 2018, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and care risks. However, medicines were not managed consistently, some records did not show planned care had been given, agency staff did not always know people's needs well, and uncovered hot pipes presented a burn risk.
Effective?
Good
Staff had relevant training and induction, understood people's choices and consent, and supported nutrition and healthcare needs. The home had adapted its environment for people with dementia.
Caring?
Good
Staff were kind and considerate. People were supported with privacy, dignity and choices, and inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and routines, and staff generally followed them. Activities were available, although outside visits were limited and the wellbeing co-ordinator post was vacant.
Well-led?
Good
The registered manager and provider used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor the home. Staff generally felt supported and able to raise concerns.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2018

Victoria Manor is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind care but medicines, records and some staffing arrangements were not consistently safe.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 November 2017. Two inspectors reviewed care plans, medicine records, food and fluid charts, accident records, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff, managers and a healthcare professional.

People said they felt safe. Staff were kind, respectful and did not rush people. Care was tailored to people's needs and choices. Meals were offered with choices, drinks and snacks were available, and people could access healthcare professionals.

The main problems were under Safe. Medicine records were not always completed correctly, some care records did not show that planned support had been given, and agency staff did not always know people's needs well. Uncovered hot pipes were also found, but the report says these were covered after the visit.

The overall rating remained Good, with Good ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, so the home was not consistently safe even though inspectors found many positive parts of the service.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly, giving reassurance and respecting people's privacy, dignity and choices.

    “Staff were caring and considerate in their approach to people and did not rush people when supporting them.” from the report
  • Staff training

    Staff had essential training and new staff received an induction before working independently. Staff understood people's care needs and the importance of consent.

    “New staff received an induction to the home that helped them to understand the individual needs of the people who lived there.” from the report
  • Food and drink

    People were offered meals, snacks and drinks, with attention to dietary needs and extra calories where required.

    “People were provided with a choice of meals and these looked hot and appetising. Snacks and drinks were provided throughout the day” from the report
  • Access to healthcare

    People were supported to see GPs and other health professionals when needed. Inspectors saw examples of action being taken when health concerns were identified.

    “People accessed healthcare professionals when needed. A GP visited the home each week and people were also supported to attend regular health checks” from the report
  • Management oversight

    The home used audits, staff meetings and action plans to identify problems and make improvements.

    “Regular audit checks were carried out at the home such audits of falls and people's weights so that any concerns were identified and addressed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records

    serious

    Medicine records did not always show clearly whether medicines had been given, refused or missed. Some instructions, including for a pain relief medicine given when needed, were incomplete.

    “When we checked medicine records, we found these were not always managed effectively.” from the report
  • Staffing and agency staff

    needs fixing

    People and staff reported mixed experiences when agency staff were working. Rotas showed at least one Sunday with fewer care staff than planned, and the rota codes were unclear.

    “Sometimes people were supported by agency staff who didn't know their needs well.” from the report
  • Incomplete care records

    needs fixing

    Some records did not show that personal care, drinks or other planned support had been provided. This made it difficult to confirm that care had been delivered consistently.

    “There was a risk that people did not always receive care and support as planned.” from the report
  • Burn risk from hot pipes

    needs fixing

    Some hot water pipes were uncovered and could have caused burns if someone fell against them. The provider told inspectors the pipes were covered after the inspection.

    “However, we found there were uncovered hot pipes in some areas of the home that could place people at risk if they should fall against them.” from the report
  • Activities and complaints

    minor

    The wellbeing co-ordinator post was vacant, and some people wanted more outings. Some people were also unclear about who they could complain to, while one family said their concerns had not initially been handled well.

    “People told us there were activities provided at the home but some said they would like to be out more.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are medicine administration records now checked to make sure refusals, missed doses, creams and patch locations are recorded correctly?
  2. 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs, particularly at weekends or when permanent staff are absent?
  3. 03How do you check that personal care, food and drink records are completed at the time care is provided?
  4. 04Has the wellbeing co-ordinator post been filled, and what activities and outings are now available?
  5. 05How are family requests and complaints recorded, followed up and checked to make sure the agreed action has happened?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Victoria Manor

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Victoria Manor →

  2. October 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Coventry

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
Caroline C., about Mary K.
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
Susan O., about Vivian A.
See live-in carers near CoventryProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.